Talk:Self-hating Jew/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Redundant sentence

I put that sentence in to accommodate the complaints of those users involved in Israel/Palestine conflict issues, who feel that they needed some special attention. Since that has now been addressed in the lead sentence ("...political positions from their accusers"), I see no reason the point should be doubled.

The problem, as I see it, is that some editors want this article to be about some Jews criticizing other Jews for not supporting Israel. That certainly needs to be in the article, but it does not need special attention (AKA POV pushing) and it should not dominate the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are not happy with that sentence being taken out, I would still be willing to return to the previous lead. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have now reinstated that sentence, in a balanced context. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

article ownership

we've made great breakthroughs on the lead, let's work together and compromise on other additions, and not make blanket reverts. Untwirl (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"ownership"?? No one "owns" Wikipedia articles. WP:OWNERSHIP --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Article changes

The "blanket revert" was because of Arimareiji's POV rewrite of the entire article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

you seem to revert anything that you didn't personally add. that is what i meant by ownership. some of his changes were minor, and it looks like he has been researching and providing sources for his additions. we should show some respect for his effort and intent to improve the article and see what we can agree to keep or remove. the same goes for your edits. Untwirl (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You call this an "explination[sic]"? Again, please address points individually, the way I made them - not as a blanket "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". arimareiji (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please re-read WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (emphasis in original)

If you think there's a problem with the article's POV, please add other significant views to it, don't make a blanket reversion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

1. You wanted additional POVs on the matter, and were not satisfied with leaving it at Finlay. I added two from each side, and was more than fair in choosing - most of those who use the term do so in a nastily partisan manner, and I had to make a serious effort to find people who sounded vaguely reasonable. Your response was to blanket-revert.
2. The bit about lashon hara is a mischaracterization of the source material, albeit one which attempts to capture the intent of those quoted. But we don't use WP:SYNTHESIS that way, or at least we're not supposed to. Your response was to blanket-revert.
3. The rephrase of Jackson was to more accurately characterize his wording in-context, and to correct the fact that the wrong page was being cited. Your response was to blanket-revert.
4. Replacing "Jewish self-hatred" with "synonymously" eliminates use of Wikipedia to assert the truth of a racial epithet. Your response was to blanket-revert.

Please address these points individually. arimareiji (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I will he happy to discuss any changes you think are needed, but not your rewrite as is because it is unbalanced. Sourced and balanced NPOV are not the same thing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If I may paraphrase - you're saying "I will be happy to discuss any changes, but not yours - I'll just blanket-revert those"? arimareiji (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please, it's hard to work together when you won't identify the specific concerns you have with the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have explained. I will let others deal with this article now, and return to editing the article at a later time.

I made a good faith attempt to present the Israel/Palestine aspect of this subject in a balanced way, and would I was certainly willing to make changes where I missed that mark.

I do not think that Arimareiji's changes are balanced, nor do they give me the impression that they are intended to be balanced. If you read the two versions side by side you will understand, if indeed you intend to understand. I will not trust you again, although I am suppose your revert was in good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, repeated refusal to identify specific concerns or refute the arguments I've made comes across as pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Not to mention your reasoning of "I will not trust you." arimareiji (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

revert on self-hating jew

Copied fr user talk page

hi! you reverted my edit. just curious to see if you looked at the sources i was referring to before you reverted it. The source in question is alon dahan, author of articles declaring uri avnery is a nazi. "political opponents" seems to be an inaccurate description of this source. the correct one is right-wing columnist, or possibly editorial columnist. please review the article and source and discuss on the talk page. thanks. Untwirl (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. Read the source again. The names "Alon Dahan" and/or "Uri Avnery" do not appear anywhere in the source article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the wrong source. I tried reading the correct source, but it is not in English. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 19:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone you are angry with a "Nazi" is pretty typical of Israeli hyperbole. I can remember a 12 year old kid, whose younger brother "borrowed" his marbles and lost them all in a game, calling his brother a Nazi (and a few other things too). That's Israel. I think that for a WP article it would be better to stay away from words like "Nazi" for anyone who did not actually belong the the Nazi Party, or declared such sympathies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

What? are you refuting the fact that dahan is a "right-wing columnist, or possibly editorial columnist"? your comment is completely off topic. i'm copying this to the talk page so poor uncle milty doesn't have to deal with this on his talk page. please reply there. Untwirl (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

milty, i couldn't read the article either, simply googled the author's name and read what little i could find about him. since the ref in question refers only to this one (seemingly) non-notable columnist, can you see my point that to generalize "political opponents" from this is misrepresentative? Untwirl (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i see now that the authors are directly referred to in the article. this seems better at first glance, but i still have concerns about notability. does it add notability to authors who otherwise are non-notable and therefore probably shouldn't be used in wiki? i am still learning about sources in wiki and welcome a lesson on this. Untwirl (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any idea how prominent those columnists are in Israel. I attributed the views to them because the sources are primary sources, not secondary sources. In other words, they are examples of the columnists calling people "auto-antisemites", not articles about the phenomenon of people being called "auto-antisemites" by their political opponents . — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks. i wasn't sure about primary and secondary sources. how does wiki determine notability? i said "seemingly" non-notable before because i don't know whether they are or aren't. i don't want to assume, but i did have trouble finding out about them on english sources. Untwirl (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

3rr malcolm schosha

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-hating_Jew&diff=264717884&oldid=264716883

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-hating_Jew&diff=prev&oldid=264704231

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-hating_Jew&diff=prev&oldid=264661128

if this happens again he should be blocked. this is disruptive editing. i'm not sure where to report it. Untwirl (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Three reverts are allowed. Read the rules. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

thanks, i just read the rules. here is a quote from the last line of the lead,

"The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule."

and

"Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring." Untwirl (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the deletions are disruptive, but is there anything wrong with adding this somewhere in the entry:

It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law).

Nbauman (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it, except for a little copy-editing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Other religions

It would be interesting to explore the phenomenon in other cultures and religions. I suppose ther are many self-hating Christians and self-hating Moslems, although the term has not exactly been coined yet. ADM (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't exist.

Assimilation has been a typical Jewish problem before Zionism and is still alive today. Ceedjee (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Balance

The term "self-hating Jew" has a wide range of implications in its use. Jewish antisemitism can be one of those implications, but it is certainly not the only implication. Emphasizing that aspect alone, as the article currently does, makes the article unbalanced. Since I have been out voted on this issue, I will not try to make changes to restore balance at this time, but it remains an issue that needs consideration.

As for the antisemitism template, I think the template is unjustified because the content is so limited. I would like to remove that because the article already has the antisemitism category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree but don't feel that strongly either way and I am also NO expert by any strech on this material. My question to the "experts" would be, how related is this term to anti-semitism? If it is very related, fine, if not, drop the template. Cheers, --Tom 14:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the template should be on the article if there is a significant amount content that discusses the subject. If, on the other hand, the subject of antisemitism is discussed briefly in the article, as here [1] in the Israel Shahak article, there is just the category. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

i was under the impression that antisemitism is attacks against jews because they are jewish. the term is by definition antisemitic because it is used only against jews and only because they are jewish. by this logic, to call someone self-hating isnt antisemitic, but self hating jew, since it is only used to express disdain for jews and not other types of people, is antisemitic. Untwirl (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No. The term seems to be most frequently against those Jews who, in one way or another, conform to WASP (or WASC) standards. For example, the term could be used against a Jewish woman who gets a nose job because large noses are considered ugly; or, as in the example I gave previously, a Jew who shows a fondness for the music of Richard Wagner [2].

The term is not used as as an antisemitic insult, but rather as an insult directed at Jews who seem to have abandoned their Jewish heritage and values. It is almost the opposite of antisemitism. For instance, there are some who accuse Israel Shahak of being a "self-hating Jew", with an implication that, in his case, he was antisemitic. But, as can be seen, the term "self-hating Jew" is not antisemitic, and rather an insult thrown at a Jew who is perceived to have abandoned, or even turned against, his heritage. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

he is a jew, no? would they be calling him that if he were anything but a jew? your special definition of antisemitism seems to be that it doesn't apply if the jew really does hate other jews (and/or himself). malcolm, your OR isn't relevant.

funny, a month ago, when we wrassled over the lead tho this article, you stated vehement opposition to an offer from me that contained wording similar to yours just now:

"Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term most widely used as an epithet for a Jewish person who is perceived by his accusers as being disloyal to their Jewish heritage."

and instead wanted this beautifully npov (and not redundant at all) statement to stand:

"Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a term used to describe a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews."

i think its apparent that you are biased here and should step back a bit for perspective. Untwirl (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

How is accusing someone of being antisemitic, an act of antisemitism? I think the accusation is an insult, but it is not antisemitic insult.

You wording for the lead apparently stayed in my memory, and I used it without realizing. (At 65, my memory still works, but can be a little vague about the sources.) Anyhow, it proves that I did read what you wrote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

accusing someone of being antisemitic is not antisemitic, just like accusing someone of being lazy isnt racist. however, the term 'self hating jew" is antisemitic and the term 'lazy ni**er' is racist. untwirl (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that is correct. There are a number antisemitic insults (for instance, kike), but "self-hating Jew is not that category insult. The actual antisemitic insults are used by non-Jews against Jews, and it is really just labeling them as a Jew in an insulting way. On the other hand,"Self-hating Jew", is a term used within the Jewish community by one Jew against against another Jew. It is a complaint implying that the (accused) self-hating Jew is not being Jewish enough. As I said, as an insult it is practically the inverse of an antisemitic insult. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

According to which reliable sources are the concepts of "Self-hating Jew" and "antisemitism" linked. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

jayjg - in the article itself, footnotes 2, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 11 all link the concepts of self hating jew and antisemitism.

malcolm - uncle tom is used by the blacks against blacks, as well as 'oreo cookie' and others, in exactly this same manner - accusation of disloyalty. and those are both (correctly) identified as ethnic slurs and racist remarks. who it is used by is not as important in determining its antisemitic quality as who it is used against, specifically jews and jews only. and even if you dont accept the obvious validity of these remarks, you yourself say that it is an accusation of antisemitism, therefore the antisemtic template is accurate. untwirl (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You have the whole thing backwards, as I have explained above. Saying that a self-hating Jew is antisemitic is not antisemitism. That is as would be absurd as saying that I am antisemitic for calling David Duke antisemitic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

i am going to agf here (even tho, with our history, i think we are beyod that point). i suggest you clarify your remark above:

"Saying that a self-hating Jew is antisemitic is not antisemitism."

i interpreted this as meaning, "its not anitsemitic for me to tell a self hating jew that he is antisemitic." if you meant something else, please clarify. you seem to be just proving my point. a true statement would be, "calling someone a self-hating jew is antisemitic." regarding the david duke example. is david duke jewish? are you calling him a name based on his being jewish? no? then that is irrelevant. for a closer comparison see my examples of oreo and uncle tom above. untwirl (talk) 15:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, Our discussion has become circular. I think I have made my point clear. It seems that Jayjg, has agreed with me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

your canvassing to jayjg's talk page looking for support notwithstanding, he asked about rs, and i provided them. i haven't heard him support your opinions.

since you refuse to retract or clarify, i would suggest you tone down your rhetoric against those to whom you apply this slur. the term self hating jew is antisemitic because it is used to insult jews exclusively, because they are jews. you have provided no argument that refutes this. to make your crude statement less offensive, "Saying that a (person who i think is a) self-hating Jew is antisemitic is not antisemitism." saying he is antisemitic is not antisemitic; calling him a self hating jew is. untwirl (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, if you want to ask for a Third Opinion, that is ok with me. Or an RfC, if you want to go to that amount of trouble. If you think there is a problem with canvassing, you could report it on AN/I. But, the fact is that Jayjg did take a look and seems to have agreed with me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm - on a slightly separate subject, you changed

"It has been termed by some of its recipients as "[an accusation] of anti-Semitism"; being "pathologised" for "contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere"

(from sources [3] and [4]) into

"In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic."

and claimed that the same sources supported your change, just a little while ago. Could you please quote where you found the basis for that assertion in those sources? arimareiji (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It is true that article is rather vaguely written, and probably should be replaced as a source. But the entire point of the article is that Eric Alterman feels he was accused of "being a self-hating Jew who has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic" (he writes Young distorted my argument to accuse me of anti-Semitism and self-hatred, using an ellipsis to make it appear as if I were describing the founding of the Jewish state as a "catastrophe"...

Probably it would be better to use Janice Booker's The Jewish American Princess and Other Myths, cited by Mick Finlay. I will change it to that, and return my addition to the article when I get some time to work on it.

Again, it would be better to get rid of Eric Alterman's light weight comments, which are vague, and casually presented.

I would be interested in seeing a source, if you can show one, that disagrees with what I added. I consider it a foundational statement on the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The first "quote" in your response is entirely of your own creation; there is no such quote in Alterman's article. The second quote actually is from the article, but has nothing other than a few duplicated words in common with your insert.

I'm sure you consider your statement to be "foundational on the subject," but Wikipedia is not the place to publish statements that aren't directly and explicitly supported by a reliable source. Nor is it the place to insinuate, let alone assert, that a racial insult is true (as your statement does). Sans the weasel-wording of "In some cases it is implied that," your statement reads:

"the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic."

That's a far cry from "This is an insult some people throw around," and it does not belong in Wikipedia. Possibly Encyclopedia Dramatica, but not Wikipedia. arimareiji (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I said the first was my own wording. It is not required, nor desirable, to just transcribe text from sources.

I still do not see any source that contradicts what I added, and I consider that sentence rather foundational for understanding the subject. I also have not seen any sources that actually call the term "self-hating Jew" an antisemitic insult. If you have a reliable source for that, you should put it in the article.

The main problem with the article remains the lack of balance in the lead. As the lead now stands, it presents the term Self-Hating Jew as nothing other than a term used by right wing Jews against anti-Zionist Jews. But the term clearly has many other uses, and has a different origin. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

If you prefer wording which asserts that those who use a racial insult (i.e. comparable to "Uncle Tom") are correct, as an individual you're entitled to use such wording to your heart's content. But you aren't entitled to insert such wording into the article, and I think you'll find that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians do not prefer wording which asserts that those who use a racial insult are correct. Your preferred wording of "the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic'" does not belong in Wikipedia.

It is inaccurate to claim that the four examples speak only of Zionists or anti-Zionists. Exactly one makes that assertion, two speak of it generally as an accusation of anti-Semitism, and one refers to conflict over the practice of Judaism. arimareiji (talk) 20:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I requested a Third Opinion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It usually helps, when asking for third opinions, to accurately characterize the debate. Whether or not "self-hating Jew" is a race-based insult is subordinate to the constraint that you can't edit Wikipedia to assert that those who use that insult are correct. Aside from moral considerations, you have no RS which can support that contention - and I would be floored if you ever find one. arimareiji (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you used English. I have no idea what "RS" is.

I think the sentence that I added to, and you reverted out of, the article is supported by every source I have read on the subject.

When I requested the third opinion, I tried to be fair in the description, and am sorry if I did not succeed to your satisfaction. I do not think there is any need to worry about that because the user who responds will go by what is on this page section. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My two cents. When somebody uses the wordings : "self hating Jews" against a Jew, it means he says that this person is rejecting his jewish origin referring to some speech he would have had or some actions he would have performed. In other words, this person also says that the Jew in question is, a way or the other, a little bit antisemite.

But I don't see where there could be antisemitism in stating to a Jew he is a self-hating Jew.

The alleged self-hating jew is assumed to take his distance with the Jewish community.

The one who accused a jew of being a self-hating one is assumed to be very close to the jewish values.

There may be misunderstanding between them, there may be some fanatism in one of them, the other, or both.

But this is not an antisemite insult. This is a pejorative term that suggests the accused jew rejects his jewish origin (maybe by antisemitism).

I don't understand you lond discussions here above.

nb: RS comes from WP:RS, which means Reliable Source.

Ceedjee (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee: The core issue is not whether "self-hating Jew" is anti-Semitic. The core issue is that it's completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia to assert that those who use an insult (whether it's race-based are not) are inherently correct. Malcolm's actual edit was to reword two sources to something they don't say: (emphasis added) "In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic."

I can completely empathize with not wanting to read TLDR. But there's a good reason that WP:3O recommends that you not weigh in without reading the discussion - the editor who posts it is not always (or even often) going to characterize debate fairly or honestly. I hope you continue to work with WP:3O and learn from the experience; neutral third opinions are hard to come by and can be invaluable. arimareiji (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, you have misrepresented the discussion. It has been about the phrase "self-hating Jew" being an antisemitic insult, or not; which anyone can easily see by reading the discussion. Also, my change to the article, which you reverted, does not say the insult is justified, it just says it is an insult....which is certainly correct. As for my edit being unsupported, it is supported by virtually every source, and contradicted by none of the sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, the discussion regarding whether or not it is an antisemitic insult was not relevant to the edit you made. the antisemitism template applies to both situations, as stevertigo said, " "self-hating Jew" carries two antisemitic dimensions. The first is as above; the connotation of being "against the Jews" (and G-d, who isn't these days?). The second is the fact that it is an attack against particular Jews - an antisemitic attack. Take recent attacks against JATO for example - entirely antisemitic, albeit not in accord with a pro-Israel definition, but with an "attack on Jews" definition." whichever connotation you subscribe to, the template applicable.

the 3rd opinion request was regarding your OR and mischaracterization of the source in the edit you made, not whether your opinion is correct that calling someone a self hating jew is accurate and not antisemitic, . untwirl (talk) 17:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that's not accurate. Malcolm filed the third opinion request, and he can ask for a third opinion on whatever he wants to. But the core issue of the edit he made, which prompted this thread, is not whether "self-hating Jew" is anti-Semitic. Thus, his linking the request to this thread is misleading at best. arimareiji (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the term self-hating Jew is antisemitic, or not, is the point we were stuck on, and that is the reason I ask for an opinion on that. But, if the user who responds is willing to expand on that to include other points, that is certainly ok with me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, your assertion that "it is supported by virtually every source" is blatant dishonesty. When you made the edit - which removed material from two sources, but kept the cites - I challenged you to give a quote from the sources to support your insertion. Your response was to give an unrelated quote from the first article, blame that article for not being specific enough, suggest that we should delete the reference, and claim that an uncited source would support you instead. You didn't even try to show that the second article would support you.

As far as whether your edits try to assert that those who call others "self-hating Jews" are correct, I think your previous edit of the first sentence of the lede to "Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a term used to describe a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews" speaks for itself. Your more recent edit, "In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic", is only better by a slight degree. arimareiji (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, are you saying that my addition had a sourcing problem that can be corrected? Or are you saying that the sentence I added, In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic., is false? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. If you read my comment, you will see that I said neither. arimareiji (talk) 18:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, I asked you a very specific question that is central to resolving this dispute. Are you going to answer? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I already have. The above comment directly answers both of your questions. arimareiji (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry if I missed the point.

More synthetically :

• using the word "self hating Jew" is not at all an antisemitic attitude
• considering somebody is a "self hating Jew" can sometimes mean that the person is considered to be "antisemite" but that doesn't prove anything and it remains an insult.

Ceedjee (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to take a second look. I still say that "self-hating Jew" is prima facie race-based, in the same way "lazy" is not but "lazy n****r" is. But even if you disagree with me on that distinction, I appreciate your support in saying that calling someone a "self-hating Jew" is an insult that doesn't prove anything about them. Malcolm has on several occasions defended or made edits which assert that the insult circularly proves that they hate Jews, Judaism, and/or their Jewish ancestry. Not that the insult claims these things, but that the insult is accurate. arimareiji (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify using the previous analogy, edits which are the equivalent of defining "A lazy n****r is a n****r who doesn't do anything because he's lazy." arimareiji (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Arimareiji, could you explain why you started to participate in WP:Third Opinion responses after I made a Third Opinion request? If I were inclined to be suspicious, I might suspect that you are trying to influence the Third Opinion outcome. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at my user page and at the WP:3O history - I periodically frequent the place, and have almost since joining. If you think WP:3O is so susceptible to bias that this would prejudice a responder, you've badly misunderstood the purpose of WP:3O. "If I were inclined to be suspicious," I would think your insinuation is projection manifesting itself. arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... Don't see anything recent. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If "periodically" is difficult to understand, this link might help. arimareiji (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no trouble with "periodically". What concerns me are actions when they appear self-serving. It is a good idea not to give a bad appearance....unless "defacing the currency" is the actual intention. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If you think there's a nefarious plot inherent in the fact that I picked up two unrelated disputes and addressed them at their respective talk pages, so be it. I have no obligation to cater to your suspicion, or to further dignify this increasingly-ridiculous insinuation. arimareiji (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, On 20:51, 11 February 2009 you wrote on this page

If you prefer wording which asserts that those who use a racial insult (i.e. comparable to "Uncle Tom") are correct, as an individual you're entitled to use such wording to your heart's content. But you aren't entitled to insert such wording into the article, and I think you'll find that an overwhelming majority of Wikipedians do not prefer wording which asserts that those who use a racial insult are correct. Your preferred wording of "the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic'" does not belong in Wikipedia.

Then on 17:30, 12 February 2009, when it became clear that you view was getting no support for that, you changed the subject to

Technically, that's not accurate. Malcolm filed the third opinion request, and he can ask for a third opinion on whatever he wants to. But the core issue of the edit he made, which prompted this thread, is not whether "self-hating Jew" is anti-Semitic. Thus, his linking the request to this thread is misleading at best.

So, first your position was that the term "self-hating Jew" is an antisemitic insult. Then when you got no support for that you wrote But the core issue of the edit he made, which prompted this thread, is not whether "self-hating Jew" is anti-Semitic.

But, going on to your next issue, you wrote on 20:07, 12 February 2009

Malcolm has on several occasions defended or made edits which assert that the insult circularly proves that they hate Jews, Judaism, and/or their Jewish ancestry. Not that the insult claims these things, but that the insult is accurate.

This was the sentence I added to the article: In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic. Perhaps you could explain where in this sentence you find anything that says, as you claim, "the insult is accurate"? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"Self-hating Jew" is not an antisemitic insult; it is not a term used by those who hate the Jewish people, or who intend to demonize it. On the contrary, it is used by those who feel quite passionate allegiance to the Jewish people. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requests

Please be aware that third opinion requests are intended to resolve disputes between only two editors. In effect, it's for soliciting a tiebreaking vote when there's an impasse. I count several more editors involved in this conversation, so I am removing the third opinion request. There are other avenues of dispute resolution to pursue if needed.

In my view, I lean in favor of Malcom's arguments. If it matters. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-loathing Jew

Malcolm Schosha, would you be so kind as to explain why a term that isn't even cited in the article deserves equal prominence in the lede with the article's subject? arimareiji (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's founder: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." arimareiji (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The term "Self-loathing Jew" is a very common alternate form of "self-hating Jew", as can be easily ascertained by doing a web search. In fact, the article could have just as easily been called Self-loathing Jew. Since both terms are used, both need to be noted. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you simply not read the above quote from Jimmy Wales, which directly addresses your argument? arimareiji (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that you did not wait for my reply but reverted the same content. Will you now restore it? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

1. To even be in the article, it needs a reliable source.
2. To be featured with equal prominence to the article's subject, it needs a reliable source which asserts that it's used in a comparably-common fashion.

You're very fond of demanding that your edits be kept. Please note that when both policy (WP:V) and Jimmy Wales (see above) directly contradict you, you don't have a leg to stand on and should probably find one before returning to make the same demands. arimareiji (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Previous version

Jayjg, I think this earlier version is preferable to what is there now

Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term "often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their life-styles, interests or political positions from their accusers". It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law).

In Jewish political discourse the term is frequently used to designate Jews who are opposed to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel. In such applications it is used much like the word "traitor."

The Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel and Zionism have challenged the phrase as being ad hominem attacks, based on their political views.

This was all deleted by Arimareiji following an edit war. If there had been time, I would have moved some things around, and put the sentence concerning Hashon Hara at the end of the lead.

What is actually in the article now is written so badly that it is virtually incomprehensible. The final sentence is totally incomprehensible. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it might be better rearranged like this

Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a pejorative term "often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their life-styles, interests or political positions from their accusers".

In Jewish political discourse the term is frequently used to designate Jews who are opposed to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel. In such applications it is used much like the word "traitor." The Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel and Zionism have challenged the phrase as being ad hominem attacks, based on their political views.

It is sometimes implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic. Some religious Jews believe that, because of the insulting nature of the term "self-hating Jew", its use amounts to lashon hara, which forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law).

I have no objections to further changes that would improve content. What I would like is that the wording be clear and understandable, and that the content be balanced. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

* For reference - I posted the response you see below to the original comment (1246 13 Feb). Malcolm later edited his comment (1544 13 Feb) to make it appear that I was responding to his updated version, and enclosed my comment in a blockquote. He has now decided to further separate my comment with a subdiv. When I protested his second de facto refactor of my comment in six hours, he deleted the comment I posted protesting it, and reinstated the subdiv. Rather than edit-war, I'm leaving this grace note to explain the actual history of discussion rather than this edited version of it. arimareiji (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Complaining about the Previous Version

(<inserting subsection division to separate my suggestion from all the complaining and misrepresentation of it that follows. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

Malcolm Schosha is yet again POV-pushing. The reasons lashon hara were deleted by consensus (not "by arimareiji") were 1) It isn't supported by the sources, and 2) lashon hara is an "embarrassingly true" insult. I am at a loss to explain his need to constantly make edits to put Wikipedia in the position of asserting that those who use the insult are accurate rather than properly attributing it as their claim.

As to the rest of his edits, I would think trying to additionally 1) call recipients of the term "traitors." 2) assert they're "opposed to... the existence of Israel," 3) assert that those who use the insult "designate" rather than claim, and 4) assert that all "Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel and Zionism" fall under this label... plainly speak for themselves. arimareiji (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji wrote: lashon hara is an "embarrassingly true" insult.

The problem is that Arimareiji is editing in this subject with no knowledge of the Judaism. Lashon Hara is not an insult, it is Jewish Law. It is forbidden to say something bad about a person, even if it is true. If what is said is false, that is even worse [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Malcolm, did you not learn from being blocked for refactoring other people's comments, as you just did to mine before I corrected it?
2. Also, wrt to editing your comment in-place after response: Making it look like someone is responding to your later edit rather than what you had actually written at the time is not civil.
3. The person who keeps calling it "Hashon Hara" is upbraiding me for not understanding the concept? Nota bene: In colloquial English, one can refer to an act by the law that it breaks. "Perjury," for instance, refers to an act which breaks the laws against it. arimareiji (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not refactor anything. Nota bene is not "colloquial English", its Italian. Any other complaints? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your unclosed blockquote tag did indeed refactor my comment. Nota bene is neither English nor Italian, it's Latin for "Take heed" - something you failed to do. arimareiji (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I did nothing intentional to change your edit. NB: Nota Bene is perfect Italian, as it says here [[6]]. Capice? If it is Latin also, I can not help that. Any other complaints? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent)

1. I take it that means you now admit that you did refactor my comment, whether intentional or unintentional. Please take greater care against doing so.
2. In most history books, Latin is a direct ancestor of Italian. Not a contemporary peer. That aside, if you had known what it meant there would have been no reason to grossly misunderstand "Take heed: In colloquial English, one can refer to an act by the law that it breaks" as actually saying "'Take heed' is a phrase in colloquial English."
3. To paraphrase you, "any other" insupportable assertions, especially of the "Those who get called self-hating Jews deserve it because it's true" type? arimareiji (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I have no idea. If you edit was changed, I did not intend it. (I do admit to a very high level of computer incompatance) You could take it to an administrator if you doubt that. I would suggest Gwen Gale, she can usually be counted on to give me a block (or at least a warning) for virtually anything .
2. I believe it actually came into use through Italian (as did musical notation), and the Latin is coincidental.
3. I have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing you have in quotes was said by me. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether it's Latin or Italian or both? Can we try to craft a lede that satisfies everybody without resorting to petty bickering? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

May I also suggest that you not include your references inside <ref></ref> tags, because it makes it difficult to check the sources. Instead, please include them as raw links. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm is trying to resurrect lashon hara, but that's only the beginning. He also wants to reword the lede to assert that a "self-hating Jew" is a "traitor" who is "opposed to Zionism and to the existence of the state of Israel," and assert that "The Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel and Zionism have challenged the phrase as being ad hominem attacks, based on their political views." Considering how frequently he's used wording that asserts as fact (not a claim) that his characterizations of "self-hating Jews" are true, I don't think there's much doubt left that these aren't just a very long string of innocent mistakes. If you'd like, I can pull up a list of diffs where he does so, but it would take time to compile them all. arimareiji (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I was saying it is an accusation of traitor, not that it is true. I think that is pretty clear in the context, but I am open to changes to improve the wording. What is in the article now is so badly written that it is virtually incomprehensible, and not balanced either. I wrote this section in reply to a question from Jayjg, and I would not be inclined to go much further until I hear what he has to say. He asked, I gave my answer. But I did not say what I suggested has to be kept just the way I presented it, or used at all. But something better that what is there now is necessary Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Instances of Malcolm Schosha proposing or defending Mainspace wording which asserts as a fact that "self-hating Jew" is accurate rather than a claim:

1. [7] "a Jew who is considered to be actively working against what they perceive as the interests of the Jewish people" (In counterpoint, he clearly labels as a claim "some Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel or Zionism have alleged the phrase being used.")
2. [8] "The term self hatred has its origin in psychology and refers to extreme dislike of oneself, anger at oneself. The term is also used to to describe individuals with a dislike or hatred of a group to which they belong." (Self-explanatory.)
3. [9] "It is a key part of the term "self-hating Jew."" (Defending #2)
4. [10] (Repeats #2.)
5. [11] "No. This seems too POV. Words like... "accusers" are problematic here." (In response to wanting to change "who is perceived by others" to "who is perceived by his accusers.")
6. [12] "a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews." (As with #1, this is contrasted with the other side "alleged".)
7. [13] "I do understand, but I do not think there is a problem with that." (In response to #6 being functionally the same as #1.)
8. [14] "it describes a Jew who dislikes his or her Jewish ancestry, his or her own Jewish identity, or other Jews."

Lest anyone think I'm picking and choosing from his entire history... these were during a single week (2 Jan - 9 Jan). I had planned to scour from 1 Jan to present, but 1) this is already overkill and 2) I now have a massive headache. This is not one innocent mistake in wording, or two, or... you get the idea. This is a constant pattern of deliberately-chosen wording from now to the present. arimareiji (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

dont forget the first sentence he fought for inclusion (ad nauseam, to throw in some more latin for ya ;) ).

"Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a term used to describe a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews." untwirl (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC) oops, he did cover this one. untwirl (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. So now you've graduated from twice refactoring my comments to outright deleting them, all in one day? arimareiji (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(Restoring deleted comment) I thought we just spoke about not refactoring others' comments. Please do not continue separating my response (the same one you previously refactored) from your comment. arimareiji (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only change I made was to insert a sub-section break. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

re: the "subsection break": your use of the words "complaining" as well as "capice" are belittling and uncivil. please stop. untwirl (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a letter out of "capisce," which is perfectly good Italian for "understand" (infinative:capire). Capisce?

malcolm, characterizing editors who dispute your unsourced, inflammatory OR and synth as 'complaining' and telling them 'capice?'(sic) is not conducive to a civil, collaborative editing environment. continuing to do so, after being nicely asked to stop, is downright rude and antagonistic (see WP:DISRUPT.) after being blocked for edit warring and personal attacks on editors of this very article one would think you would tone down the rhetoric . . .(oh, and dont forget to sign) untwirl (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, if you think I have violated WP rules on this page, rather than refactor my comments, you should contact an administrator, or initiate a thread on AN/I. Capisce? (From Italian capisce, third person present tense form of capire “to understand”, from Latin capere “to grasp, seize”. Related to capture.[15]) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, it seemed as though you approved of refactoring other editors comments. you dont need me to report you, you seem to get enough attention on your own. and since we're quoting gangster movies, "say hello to my little friend!" untwirl (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• untwirl, you are misrepresenting me, perhaps unintentionally.

1. My Italian was never very good, and is now mostly forgotten; but I did live in Florence, Italy, for seven years and I sometimes like using Italian words because Italian is such a beautiful language, and because I am forever nostalgic for the years when I lived in that wonderful country.
2. I know nothing about gangster movies, and have no interest in quoting them. My wife and I have not had a TV since we were married 43 years ago. In the last 40 years I have seen about 4 movies, none of them about gangsters. I have nothing to draw on for quoting gangster movies....and would not quote them if I did.
3. You attitude toward things Italian seems quite biased. Italy is a wonderful country, and the Italian Renaissance was the basis for many important developments that followed in Western culture. The music of Italy was the source of the system of classical music notation which is used to this day, and Italian music made many important contributions to Western culture. You might want to rethink your attitude toward Italy.

Salve. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Distorting the source

I deleted this phrase (now restored by Arimareiji) from the article: ...or with "‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion.".

The reason it does not belong in the article is because it inverts the meaning and intent of Rabbi Levi Brackman, who wrote the article cited. That phrase, by appearing to imply that Judaism is a "backward" religion, and that those who have refused to associate themselves with it are "enlightened," inverts the actual meaning of what Rabbi Brackman actually wrote, as can be seen by reading the article[16]. That sort of distortion of a source is reprehensible, and dishonest. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, you asserted that this [sic] "completly destorts the intent and meaning of source cited." The source is "Confronting the self hating Jew," by Rabbi Levi Brackman.

From the source: "However, recently I have encountered a more subtle form of Jewish self-hate, in the form of so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."

From the article: "Some who use the term have equated it with... "‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion.""

Could you explain (preferably with the support of quotes) why it's a distortion, as opposed to simply asserting that it is when your assertion flies in the face of the quotes I just gave? arimareiji (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NB: I thought it was pretty blatantly obvious from the 'quotes' that Brackman had no intention of asserting that as a fact. Does my inclusion of "so called" to make it more obvious address your objection? arimareiji (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not at all obvious. Rather it appears to invert the actual meaning of Rabbi Levi Brackman. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment, go look at the article, and then answer again. arimareiji (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a little easier to read now, but still says something very different than the intent of Brackman. If you actually read the whole article, then it is clear you have not understood it; and it appears that you just scanned it for a quote that would suite your purpose, which is clearly not the same as author's purpose. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it was already amply obvious from the fact he's calling them "self-hating Jews" and the fact he put what he believes they think into 'quotes', but now it's explicitly obvious that he does not believe "self-hating Jews" are correct in their beliefs. That was the substance of your original objection. Could you explain what more you want, preferably backing it up with quotes of more than one word? arimareiji (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Brackman is not discussing the nature of the term "self-hating Jew" in this article. His point is that throwing insults at those "liberal" Jews who are separated from the Jewish community (insults like: "self-hating Jew") only serves to further separate them from Judaism. He wants dialog to replace the insults, because he thinks that will be more persuasive and effective. In other words, he has no interest in defining the term, he just wants Jews to stop using it. The idea is to replace it by defending Judaism with intelligent arguments.

It might be useful to mention in the article that many religious Jews, who are concerned about the phenomena that the term is intended to describe, are quite opposed to its use...as with Brackman.

By the way, I want to add here -- since you seem to completely misunderstand my intent in editing this article -- I have not used the term Self-hating Jew to describe any person in my entire life, and I regard its use as nothing better than a cheap shot. You seem to have the very mistaken idea that I am defending the use of the term. Nothing could be further from the truth. All I have been trying to do is get an accurate and balanced description of how and why the term is used, which goal is completely in accord with WP policy. Up to this moment, in my view, you have done nothing to bring the article closer to that goal. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

i have thoroughly read that article, and you misrepresent brackman.

you assert that he doesn't discuss the nature of the term. he actually does, "A Jew who publicly criticizes Israel or the Jewish community may often be labeled as self hating." and "However one must caution that not all disaffected people are self hating and nor should they all be labeled that way." ("not all . . .are" means that some are and should be labelled that way) he never says, "He wants dialog to replace the insults, because he thinks that will be more persuasive and effective." or that "he just wants Jews to stop using it." in fact, the name of the article is "confronting the self-hating jew." regarding arimareiji's edit, he quotes brackman precisely and without any novel interpretation that you apply. "recently I have encountered a more subtle form of Jewish self-hate, in the form of so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."

regarding your protest that you have not attempted to defend or justify the term, and you seek an "accurate and balanced description" - a review of your editing history shows otherwise. in addition to the many diffs provided above, see this one http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-hating_Jew&diff=261477647&oldid=261476138 in which you reverted a sourced statement "'who holds different views regarding "their lifestyles, interests or political positions (particularly with respect to Israel) from their accusers" with this, "who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews" with the edit summary, "If there is more SOAP and POV pushing this is going to A/NI for discussion there. rather discuss on the talk page)"untwirl (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I am quite willing to have any impartial user take a look at the editing here an decide for themselves. Probably I will initiate an RfC if the editing situation does not soon improve, and the unfounded accusations cease. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm - it's theoretically possible that your intent all along has been to neutrally characterize the term "self-hating Jew" without asserting that those who use it are right. But given your long history of making a wide variety of edits which just happen to assert it as a fact that "self-hating Jews" hate themselves, other Jews, Judaism, etc - and to contrast it with those who "allege" that it's wrong - it strains credibility that all of them were a series of innocent mistakes. As long as you continue to do so, I will oppose any edit which tries to cast either "self-hating Jew" or those who use the term as incorrigibly wrong.

That's the whole reason for including Brackman - it's undue to remove the most reasonable voice on that side, just as it's undue to assert that "self-hating Jews" merit the insult. Brackman at least tries to portray usage of the term in the most positive light, as opposed to those who unabashedly use it with the most venom possible. But he does assert that the term can be used, whatever his intent in doing so may be. He doesn't attribute it to others, he uses it himself, and by using it he lends it his credibility. He doesn't get a "get out of article free" card just because he tries to soften the impact; in fact that's why he has to be included.

I'm saddened to hear you continuing to call it a "cheap shot" - like your insistence on saying its use violates lashon hara versus motzi shem ra or hotzaat diba, it asserts that it's a true insult which is only wrong because it takes unfair advantage of an opponent's weakness. As long as you continue to make edits that assert that "self-hating Jew" is definitionally true, I will oppose them on the grounds that Wikipedia does not take sides. Should your actions henceforth be to stop trying to characterize "self-hating Jews" in the most negative light possible, I would be glad for it and you would find that I would not oppose your edits. I oppose your actions, not you personally. arimareiji (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

malcolm, which accusations are unfounded? they are all supported by the diffs. please provide diffs or quotes to support you (as i did) untwirl (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume you meant Malcolm and not me, since I didn't use the words "unfounded accusations"? arimareiji (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, added his name to clarify. untwirl (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Malcolm - you've taken this to WP:3O, WP:AN/I, and at least two separate administrators already. If this RfC has the same result, will you please put an end to the forum-shopping? arimareiji (talk) 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

10 lines

There are 10 lines in that article. The talk page is currently more that 500 lines... Would all the sides mind stating precisely the sentence they want to remove and the ones they want to add ? Ceedjee (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jayjg asked pretty much the same question a few days ago. My answer to him is here. I assume the article, as it is now, is the way arimareiji and untwirl want it because it was written by arimareiji with untwirl's support. If it is not the way they want it, I do not know why not because they have reverted every single change I made to the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The consensus for removing lashon hara was 3-0 on the Talk page, because Malcolm was absent except to keep reverting Mainspace. The reason it was removed is that 1) lashon hara is by definition a true insult, which Malcolm well knows, and 2) the source says no such thing about it applying to "self-hating Jew." Malcolm keeps inserting or arguing for a variety of edits like this that assert that "self-hating Jew" is factually true rather than a thrown insult.

A small sampling:

1. [17] "a Jew who is considered to be actively working against what they perceive as the interests of the Jewish people" (In counterpoint, he clearly labels as a claim "some Jewish writers and activists who are critical of Israel or Zionism have alleged the phrase being used".)
2. [18] "The term self hatred has its origin in psychology and refers to extreme dislike of oneself, anger at oneself. The term is also used to to describe individuals with a dislike or hatred of a group to which they belong." (Self-explanatory.)
3. [19] "It is a key part of the term "self-hating Jew."" (Defending #2)
4. [20] (Repeats #2.)
5. [21] "No. This seems too POV. Words like... "accusers" are problematic here." (In response to wanting to change "who is perceived by others" to "who is perceived by his accusers.")
6. [22] "a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews." (As with #1, this is contrasted with the other side "alleged".)
7. [23] "I do understand, but I do not think there is a problem with that." (In response to #6 being functionally the same as #1.)
8. [24] "it describes a Jew who dislikes his or her Jewish ancestry, his or her own Jewish identity, or other Jews."

This was just from Jan 2 - Jan 9, and he has a history of months here doing the same thing. I can search for more, if you'd like. But I believe this is already overkill for proving that this is a pattern, not the innocent mistake he keeps claiming. arimareiji (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Nota bene - He says this is the only edit he's concerned with, but he's made or fought the removal of several in the last week along these same lines. He's already gone to WP:3O, WP:AN/I, and at least two admins looking for support for each of these in turn. Having failed to find support in any of these places, he's now trying an RfC. arimareiji (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

much of the discussion on this talk page has been focused on malcolm's attempts to justify this term as an accurate description, instead of referring to it as a racially-inspired perjorative. i am opposed to any attempt on his part to continue this behavior. untwirl (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Two points about Arimareiji's comments, above

1. no.8, for instance, makes a sweeping denunciation of my edit, after selectively editing it to make it sound like something different than I actually wrote. The content that follows makes it more balanced. Additionally, since by its very nature the term "self-hating Jew" is an accusation, why not say that? Presenting the meaning of the term as it really is, does not justify it, much claim that it is good.
2. I never said my version could not be improved by contributions from other editors. In fact, I think of that is a WP editing basic, and I assume changes will be made. But, althought it could surely be improved, I still think it better that the current content. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ceedjee can see for him/her-self whether these are stated as fact, or whether they're stated as "assertions," "accusations," etc. There are diffs provided. arimareiji (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As to "it can be improved" - how do you propose to "improve" falsely-sourced OR? arimareiji (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, that is pretty close to my view of your version: it is OR in which you have cherry picked material from the sources (and thus misrepresenting the sources) to prove your own POV. But we know by now that we disagree. That is why I initiated this RfC. Perhaps, instead of filling up this thread with more of our arguments, it would be better to see what comments other users have to make. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• The source in dispute.
• The sentence which Malcolm says is based on the source: "It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law)."
• The section where it was debated and rejected by three editors as WP:OR not based on the source. arimareiji (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The source on Lashon Hara was from the Forward, which seems to have taken it down. I suppose it can be retrieved, and it is copied here [25]. None of the three users who decided it was OR know anything about Judaism. In my view it is clear that the article says it is Lashon Hara, and the source is WP:reliable.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that making an unsupported ad hominem charge of "None of the three users who decided it was OR know anything about Judaism" helps your case? arimareiji (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that none of you actually understood Lashon Hara, or for that matter the importance of Halaka (Lashon Hara being a part of Halaka) to religious Jews. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it up, Malcolm, and you're going to wind up at WP:WQA. It is clear that you don't know what any of us actually understand. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

1) The article's been moved here.

2) I really don't appreciate your comment that I don't know anything about Judaism. Please try to be WP:CIVIL toward other editors.

3) Please show us exactly where the article says that calling another Jew a "self-hating Jew" is lashon hara. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the updated link, I corrected my earlier broken one. arimareiji (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, in what way is not understanding the nature of such a uniquely Jewish concept as Lashon Hara an insult? Even most Jews have never heard of it, much less understand it. Please review to WP:good faith. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please show us exactly where the article says that calling another Jew a "self-hating Jew" is lashon hara. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, I will show you. But it will have to be tomorrow because now I am out of steam. Lila tov. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Lashon hara

From the source: "Sieradski, 28, launched a campaign to lift the language out of the gutter. “Jewish Bloggers for Responsible Speech Online” invited Jewish bloggers to insert a photograph of the Chofetz Chayyim, a 19th-century Lithuanian Jewish scholar who redacted the religious laws governing speech, on their Web sites. The picture would then link to an explanation of the edicts against speaking negatively of others, known in Jewish law as lashon harah. The move, Sieradski said, grew out of his frustration over verbal skirmishes with a competing Jewish group blog, Jewlicious.com, founded by David Abitbol. Dozens of Jewish bloggers have since added the link, Sieradski said, but Abitbol’s operation is not among them."
The only use of "self-hating Jew" on the page is "“Because of the challenging views I’ve expressed with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I’ve been called a Zionazi by Left-wingers and a self-hating Jew by Right-wingers,” Daniel Sieradski, founder of the blog Jewschool.com, wrote in an e-mail to the Forward."
There is no direct correlation between them, and asserting that lashon hara (which incidentally is defined on Wikipedia as a true but nasty accusation) forbids use of "self-hating Jew" is WP:SYNTHESIS. arimareiji (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree that is seems to be synthesis. linking to lashon hara -"most importantly, is true" according to wiki, misconstrues this term as an embarassing fact. also, "Some religious Jews..." misidentifies sieradski, who is identified in the article as a blogger, not as a religious jew. i don't think this belongs in the lead, if anywhere. Untwirl (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was a little bit of a stretch, but the sentence didn't bother me. Please tak it out if you don't think it belongs.

PS: With respect to Sieradski, I didn't pay close attention to how he was identified. His other blog is called The Orthodox Anarchist, and the suggestion was a religious one, so I made an assumption that I shouldn't have. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(oops edit conflict)

no prob, that was really a small issue. i'm not familiar with lashon hara and the sentence didn't really bother me either until i read what it meant and read the article in question. there does seem to be some editorial synthesis, which alone is enough to exclude it, but even more concerning is the not-so-subtle implication that the 'accusation' is true. thanks Untwirl (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to AGF; I'd be willing to bet the implication was accidental. Not that it should stay, but I don't see ill intent. arimareiji (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

i meant not so subtle as in the wiki def - not as an accusation against any editors. sorry if it came across that way. Untwirl (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think we mean the same thing expressed different ways. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I had removed it, because I believe it's synthesis and doesn't belong. But for the time being I'll skip your invitation to remove it again, because I don't want to fall afoul of 3rr. (Especially since Malcolm has made the implicit threat to resume reverting once 24 hours is up.) arimareiji (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I self-reverted and took it out. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; I very much do appreciate it. I'm especially hypersensitive to the issue after falling afoul of Elonka just recently. arimareiji (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(See bottom of page; this has cropped up again.) arimareiji (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing mischaracterizations

My actual first statement on the matter, which you claim shows "So, first your position was that the term "self-hating Jew" is an antisemitic insult.":

"Malcolm - on a slightly separate subject, you changed

"It has been termed by some of its recipients as "[an accusation] of anti-Semitism"; being "pathologised" for "contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere"

(from sources [26] and [27]) into

"In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic."

and claimed that the same sources supported your change, just a little while ago. Could you please quote where you found the basis for that assertion in those sources? arimareiji (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)"

Untwirl's actual response, which you mischaracterized as "when it became clear that you view was getting no support for that" (and I invite Untwirl to comment on whether this was meant to support you):

"regarding your [Malcolm Schosha's] OR and mischaracterization of the source in the edit you made, not whether your opinion is correct that calling someone a self hating jew is accurate and not antisemitic"

Ceedjee's actual response to my position as laid out in my first statement, after I let him/her know that you had mischaracterized my position at WP:3O (and I invite Ceedjee to comment on whether this was meant to support you):

"considering somebody is a "self hating Jew" can sometimes mean that the person is considered to be "antisemite" but that doesn't prove anything and it remains an insult."

I've repeatedly asked: Stop putting words in my mouth. I leave it to others to make the same request, but I hold little hope that you'll comply given that you've continued doing it.

Finally, this is one of several full statements which you ignored:

"As far as whether your edits try to assert that those who call others "self-hating Jews" are correct, I think your previous edit of the first sentence of the lede to "Self-hating Jew (or self-loathing Jew) is a term used to describe a Jew who feels hatred toward his or her Jewish ancestry or other Jews" speaks for itself. Your more recent edit, "In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic", is only better by a slight degree."

Repeatedly demanding the same explanation and then snipping from a synopsized version to make it appear that there is no case is a particularly egregious form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. arimareiji (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is the current dispute (if any) regarding article content? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As the first quote shows, I asked what basis he had for reattributing those two sources to his chosen wording. This was his response. Since, there's been a lot of repetition back and forth of "Your statement misappropriates two sources to add "a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic", which is WP:OR and POV-pushing" followed by "No, calling someone a self-hating Jew isn't anti-Semitic." arimareiji (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

What text would you like in the article, and what text would Malcolm like in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

See the first quote in this section; I added the quotes and sources to the article. Malcolm later removed only the quotes, kept the sources, and added a "foundational statement" despite being unable to show any connection to those sources. arimareiji (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The first quote in this section is some sort of dispute between you and Malcolm. I can't make heads or tails of the discussion on this page, and I'd like to cut to the actual dispute regarding article content. Can you list two version of article text here, directly below this comment? The first should be your preferred version of the text, the second should be Malcolm's. I've provided convenient sections to put them in. Also, please provide the sources. Then I can actually compare them to each other and to the sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji's preferred version of article text

"It has been termed by some of its recipients as "[an accusation] of anti-Semitism"; being "pathologised" for "contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere"

Malcolm Schosha's preferred version of article text

"In some cases it is implied that the Jew who is accused of being a self-hating Jew has turned against Judaism to the point of actually being antisemitic."

Sources

[28] and [29]
(For reference, "[an accusation] of anti-Semitism" is from the first source and "pathologised" for "contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere" is from the second source.)

Those who have weighed in on this subject

If any of the following feel they're being misrepresented, please speak up:
arimareiji, Untwirl, Ceedjee - Malcolm's edit was misappropriation of sources and/or asserting that the insult is accurate
Malcolm Schosha - Malcolm's edit was representative of virtually every source

• O.K., I've looked at the sources. Alterman doesn't say being called "self-hating" is an "accusation of anti-Semitism". Rather, he says that Cathy Young accused him in an article of being both antisemitic and self-hating. He's every careful to separate the two terms. Marqusee says that anti-Zionist Jews are "pathologised" for "contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere"; in fact, his article (and book) are about being anti-Zionist. He relates a story about his father calling him a self-hating Jew, but this was before he was even anti-Zionist. Neither source backs up the claim you've made for it, so I can see why Malcolm was upset about the wording. If it makes you feel any better, I don't see the source for Malcolm's statement in the articles either. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Re-examining it, I have to concede that Alterman doesn't explicitly link the two, only keeps mentioning them in the same breath. It shouldn't be hard to find someone who does.
  • "Pathologised", wrt Marqusee's headline and context ("Whenever Jews speak out against Israel, their motives, their representativeness, their authenticity as Jews are questioned. We are pathologised. For only a psychological aberration, a neurotic malaise, could account for our defection from Israel's cause, which is presumed to be our own cause."), clearly refers to the insult's claim of "self-hatred."
  • "Contradict[ing] the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere," wrt Marqusee's headline and context ("But "If I am not for myself", then the Zionists will claim to be for me, will usurp my voice and my Jewishness. Since each Israeli atrocity is justified by the exigencies of Jewish survival, each calls forth a particular witness from anti-Zionist Jews, whose very existence contradicts the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere."), is linked by "If I am not for myself" as a refutation of the claim of self-hatred. I.e. "They're saying I don't speak for myself, because I hate myself, and therefore they have the right to speak for me. This makes it imperative that anti-Zionist Jews continue to contradict this claim." arimareiji (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
    • When you say clearly refers to the insult's claim of "self-hatred.", you must be reading between the lines, because the article clearly says no such thing. The article deals with anti-Zionist Jews, and relates a story about how Marqusee's father called him "self-hating" at a time before he was anti-Zionist. Your conflating "self-hating Jew" with "anti-Zionist Jew" is [d]rawing conclusions not evident in the reference. As for your statement It shouldn't be hard to find someone who does, this is exactly the wrong way of going about trying to edit an article, simply trying to find sources that confirm your own beliefs. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • "If I am not for myself" clearly refers to the accusation of self-hatred. It is immediately linked to "then the Zionists will claim to be for me." I'm not sure how you can assert that's not related to the following phrase of "the Zionist claim to speak for all Jews everywhere."
      • With respect to your assertion that "this is exactly the wrong way of going about trying to edit the article," I note that you asked for "What text would you like in the article, and what text would Malcolm like in the article?" before you would respond. I don't believe it indicates overt intent to take sides, but it's not particularly reassuring. arimareiji (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
      • To clarify, because I often make my points too obliquely: You asserted bad faith on my part in saying "It shouldn't be hard to find someone who does," when it was an expression of the fact that I've seen it repeatedly. My counterpoint was that your question could be just as easily construed as bad faith, even though it indicates no such thing. One of my favorite expressions for a while has been "If you're looking for something, you'll always find it." arimareiji (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
        • "If I am not for myself" clearly refers to the accusation of self-hatred - can you show how?
        • Regarding my statement "What text would you like in the article, and what text would Malcolm like in the article?", the point was not to ask for text that you would then source, but so I could understand what were the different ways you and Malcolm were trying to represent the contents of the existing citations. The comments on this Talk: page until then did not make it clear exactly which versions of text you were both warring over. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure why answering would lend clarity; to me it seems moot since the apparently-objectionable material has since been removed. But to answer, he draws a straight line from his father's accusation of "Jewish self-hatred" through his emotional reaction to it and through why his father was a product of a society that would almost uniformly react thus, to "Today, as cracks show in the presumed monolith of Jewish backing for Israel, increasing numbers of Jews are interrogating and rejecting Zionism. Nonetheless, the existence of anti-Zionist Jews strikes many people - Jews and non-Jews - as an anomaly, a perversity, a violation of the first clause in the ethical aphorism of Hillel, the first-century rabbi and doyenne of Jewish teachings: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?"" The later phrase "But "If I am not for myself", then the Zionists will claim to be for me" alludes to this alleged violation of Hillel's clause against self-hatred.
          • Could you explain what this is a specific objection to, if it is an objection? arimareiji (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
            • I didn't realize the material in question had been removed, so you're right, it's a bit moot. Regarding the other, you appeared to be saying that by asking you to explain what text you would like in the article, and what text Malcolm would, I was somehow inviting you to create article text, then find sources that supported it. In reality, I was asking you to clarify on this talk page the exact dispute between you and Malcolm. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
              • I wouldn't have guessed you would be so averse to having your advice taken. ^_^ Seriously, I did my best to do just that, clarify on this talk page what the dispute was. Once it was over and you hadn't responded, I took what you said about Alterman to heart and started looking. Personally, I actually like Alterman's replacement better, now that I've had time to think about it. I think shades of grey such as Atzmon provides are more interesting (and usually more accurate) than black and white. arimareiji (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Editors Divided on NPOV

As just one example of the problems, it can be seen by a look at the section above this RfC that there is no agreement even about what constitutes NPOV and balanced content for this article.

The gap is very wide and there is no inclination for compromise. There is no agreement even on what the term "self-hating Jew" means, nor on its implications. There has been extensive discussion on all this in the talk pages above, but the discussion has, up to this point, reached no agreements and no compromises. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus, yes. Compromises, you can see one immediately above. Unanimous agreement, no. arimareiji (talk) 19:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

From the Torah.org translation of Shmirat HaLoshon:
Lashon Hara - any derogatory or damaging (physically, financially, socially, or stress-inducing) communication.
Rechilut - any communication that generates animosity between people.

It seems to me that self hatred is a term in psychology rather than religion. I have heard of only one self-hating Jew in my generation. That was Frank Collins, head of the Illinois Nazi Party. He resigned when a newspaper found out that he was Jewish. Phil_burnstein (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Using sources

Lashon Hara

I had put a sentence on the article (removed by Malik Shabazz and Arimareiji) which read: It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law).

Looking at the article [30], (Rebecca Spence, Vitriol Proliferates on Jewish Blogs, published in The Forward), it is the first five paragraphs that are of particular interest, and support the sentence on Lashon Hara.

Paragraphs 1 and 2 describe the case of Richard Silverstein, who claimed credit on his blog for shutting down an extremist right-wing Web site that listed the names of thousands of left-wing Jewish activists; and the subsequent creation of an attack sight directed against Silverstein: The fake blog, called “Little Dickie’s Diaper Droppings,” wasn’t pretty. In addition to the scatological references, the site was riddled with graphic sexual innuendo.

Paragraph 3 it is written: Scurrilous barbs and sharp-tongued insults are routinely tossed back and forth through cyberspace from one Jewish blogger to another, appearing in long threads in the sections reserved for reader comments.

Paragraph 4 (which introduces the invective term "self-hating Jew") discusses the experience and observation of Daniel Sieradski, who is quoted as saying: Because of the challenging views I’ve expressed with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I’ve been called a Zionazi by Left-wingers and a self-hating Jew by Right-wingers.

Paragraph 5 (which ties together all the above examples of invective as being Lashon Hara) quotes Daniel Sieradski as saying: his first attempt at reconfiguring Jewish blogger etiquette came in 2005, when Sieradski, 28, launched a campaign to lift the language out of the gutter. “Jewish Bloggers for Responsible Speech Online” invited Jewish bloggers to insert a photograph of the Chofetz Chayyim, a 19th-century Lithuanian Jewish scholar who redacted the religious laws governing speech, on their Web sites. The picture would then link to an explanation of the edicts against speaking negatively of others, known in Jewish law as lashon harah.

As can easily be seen, the first four paragraphs describe particular instances of the use of invective by Jewish bloggers. In the fifth paragraph Rebecca Spence uses the Daniel Sieradski quote to tie all the examples of invective together. NB: the writer Spence quotes in paragraph four, protesting against being called a "self-hating Jew", and the discussion of such invective being Lashon Hara both come from a single source, Daniel Sieradski.

It is clear that the article does make the connection between the use of the term "self-hating Jew" and Lashon Hara. QED

There might still be some doubt about the last phrase in the sentence I had added to the article: and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law). In my view Sieradski makes that connection abundantly clear by the very use of the Halakha term "lashon Hara", and all the more by the inclusion of the picture of the Chofetz Chaim, who is considered the Halakha authority on Lashon Hara. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that anything which needs that much WP:SYNTHESIS to tie together unrelated quotes has dubious value. QED. arimareiji (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

NB: It is tied together by the same single source for The Forward article, Daniel Sieradski. WP:synthesis says, Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not in any of the sources, but that is not the case because it is all in one source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Key phrase: "A conclusion that is not in any of the sources." Neither the author nor Sieradski makes that conclusion, but you "tie together" various quotes and assert that they really meant something they didn't say.

Another quote from WP:SYNTHESIS for you: "If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the article subject, then the editor is engaged in original research."

Finally, please note that the example used in WP:SYNTHESIS is one of coming up with new conclusions from a single source. arimareiji (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that says everything has to be in one sentence. It is all the same source making the point, not combined sources. The examples of vitriol on the internet are presented in a series of paragraphs, then it is all classified as Lashon Hara. You arguments against seem unfounded. All the more so because any Jew who knows the Jewish laws of speech would concede that such speech is Lashon Hara, even those who pay it no heed. The concept is accepted as Halakha without reservation. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, only you - who repeatedly makes edits to assert that "self-hating Jew" is true versus an insult - would. The article on lashon hara makes this distinction (true, by contrast with motzi shem ra or hotzaat diba), and you're fully aware of that. arimareiji (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please review WP:NOR#Using sources: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." The article doesn't say that calling another Jew a self-hating Jew is lashon hara; you have to read that into the article. That's why it's OR. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed WP:NOR#Using sources, as you suggested. The source really does support the sentence, It has been pointed out by some religious Jews that -- because the term "self-hating Jew" is used as an insult -- it is lashon hara, and forbidden by Halakha (Jewish Law). , unless you think the material about Lashon Hara in Rebecca Spence's article was included gratuitiously, and is not intended to apply to anything previously or subsequently discussed in her article, which would be absurd. In fact there is a list of specific examples, including "self-hating Jew", followed by the observation, that would be obvious to every Orthodox Jew: that all the above examples are Lashon Hara. Concluding differently takes imagination, and determination to avoid conceding what the article says. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "statements of lashon hara, by definition, are true." So why would those paragraphs be "obvious" examples of lashon hara to observant Jews? Are you saying that they're true, or that readers of The Forward would believe that they're true? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, please note that Daniel Sieradski is the person who is trying to connect negative blog comments with lashon hara. Are you saying that Sieradski, the Orthodox Anarchist, is a reliable source? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Rabbi Levi Brackman

The article contains this sentence: Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed, or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."

The last phrase, ...or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion. is sourced to an article by Rabbi Levi Brackman, which can be read here [31]. Although the words within quotes used in the article are factually accurate, they are used to make a point that is not to be found in Rabbi Brackman's article, and that phrase seems to imply a meaning that may actually be the inverse of Brackman's intent.

I have been arguing to have that phrase removed from the article because it amounts to OR, and is POV, but so far to no effect.

Please also note that the first part of the same sentence ("Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed) leaves it unclear who is being accused of antisemitism, the accuser, or the one accused. That point needs to be made clear. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The name of the article: "Confronting the self hating Jew".
• The full sentence: "However, recently I have encountered a more subtle form of Jewish self-hate, in the form of so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."
• Malcolm's earlier interpretation of what Brackman really meant to say: "His point is that throwing insults...

(click blue button at right to see text)
at those "liberal" Jews who are separated from the Jewish community (insults like: "self-hating Jew") only serves to further separate them from Judaism. He wants dialog to replace the insults, because he thinks that will be more persuasive and effective. In other words, he has no interest in defining the term, he just wants Jews to stop using it."

I leave that to your good judgment.

• As to whether "Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed" is ambiguous, I also leave that to your good judgment. arimareiji (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I ask that the whole article [32] be read, because Arimareiji's cherry picking of a quote distorts Rabbi Brackman's clear intent and meaning. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Certainly; that's why I provided a usable link to it so that people can do so. I'm glad you followed suit when you responded. But didn't you say earlier that we should characterize our positions and leave it alone for the reader to decide? arimareiji (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, I suppose that my biggest objection to your comments, in general, is that I do not appreciate your ongoing attack ad type campaign against me. While doing very little, to support your version, you have discussed at length what you think is wrong with me personally, and what you think is wrong with my views on the subject. The obvious problem with such an approach, aside from its negativity, is that you have done little to justify the existence of the current very defective, and virtually unintelligible, version. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In your opinion, which seems to be rather isolated and persistent. You have a long history of these kind of edits, and claiming that it's unfair to provide diffs in contrast to your ongoing claims of "It was just one innocent mistake" is rather absurd. You should probably make a clear choice between 1) "leave it alone and let commenters decide", or 2) "I have to get in both the first and the last word". arimareiji (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to diffs. But, while you continue to avoid defending the present version, you are acting as though the RfC is about me. When I initiated this RfC, I described the problem as: The editors are unable to agree on what constitutes NPOV content for this article. You will notice that I avoided accusations about other editors. I was hoping to discuss improvements to the article. Is it your position that the article is good enough just as it is? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

My position is that adding edits which openly assert that those who use the insult "self-hating Jew" are correct will not improve it. If you suggest edits which improve the article and which don't assert that "self-hating Jew" is a factual description, you'll never hear a peep from me against them. But neither of the above fit that bill. And I have no particular desire to keep re-hashing "Oh, that was just a mistake" repeatedly. arimareiji (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, you say that the quote in the Wikipedia article distorts the meaning of Brackman's article. Could you propose a better way of summarizing the meaning of the article? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(If you click the pink box above, you'll see how he synopsizes the article. Alternately, do a find-on-page of "Rabbi Brackman is not" to see his entire synopsis. It's interesting to compare that to what the article actually says. arimareiji (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC) )

Brackman says that not all critics of Judaism are self-hating, but that there are definitely self-hating Jews, and he clearly says that (some of) the liberal Jews he has met hate themselves. He also says that by being welcoming, religious communities can help prevent Jewish self-hatred. Those are not contradictory thoughts. Malcolm's summary is wrong, because he's only reading the first and last thirds of the article. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the sentence sourced to Brackman (Some who use the term have equated it with "anti-Semitism" on the part of those thus addressed, or with "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion.") at best as nothing to do with his actual point. At worst it is the opposite his actual point. Of course, the sentence is so badly written, verging on incomprehensible, that it difficult to be sure just what it does say. The article should either include something about his actual point, the need for religious Jews to communicate with secular Jews instead of insulting them, or the source should not be used.

To give a parallel example, it is possible to mine Epicurean texts to find some statements that appear support the views of opposing Stoic school of philosophy. But that would fundamentally misrepresent the source, which should be avoided. Either the intention of the source should be represented fairly, or it should not be used. Likewise, I could pick out some quotes from any politician to make it sound as thought his/her views are the opposite of their actual positions. Doing that is dishonest. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it then once more your assertion that Brackman does not define and use the term about a specific group, the "so called ‘enlightened’ Jews who refuse to associate themselves with people who practice a ‘backward’ religion."? arimareiji (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)